You wrote:
>"It seems we still don't agree on definitions. I think this is a relatively
>minor point here since you say explicitly what you mean by the terms
>you're using, i.e. the ideas are more important than the words. Anyway,
>I think most complexologists would consider evolution to be, for the most
>part, a self-organizing process, especially wrt the origin of novelty.
Here is where the philosophy enters the picture. Without God, the novelty must arise in and of itself. Since I believe that God designed the phase space for iterative systems, and designed chemistry itself, I believe that the information necessary for organization is already contained in the phase space and was put there by God. In that case, it is not SELF organized, but organized by an external agent - God. When the program starts at the single dot form, it is no less complex than when it produces exquisite forms. With this view there is no violation of the second law of thermodynamics which Christians are always charging evolution with. The complexity, information etc. are already there. Thus, I would view evolution as a self-ordering process (i..e. a process that displays the complexity already there)rather than a self-organizing process (i.e. a process that produces its own organization).
For these reasons, I do not feel compelled to accept the definition of complexologists. But if you prefer to call this self-organization, I have no objection and can adjust my terminology. (I think I can adjust. My kids tell me I am getting older and more set in my ways).
Brian wrote:
>First, I think you've done a marvelous job on these programs, but,
>I'm afraid you've put me in a bit of a bind. To be fair, I have to
>evaluate the little critters according to the same criteria I used
>when concluding that your gasket program was an example of self-
>ordering, i.e. I have to look for repeating patterns, self-similarities
>or some evidence suggesting they are ordered. I ran your programs
>in Windows so that I could use a screen capture program to zoom in
>and study them in detail. Except for the initial stages, dots and
>lines, I have to conclude that the critters are complex. Whether they
>are organized depends on how one defines organized. Some people define
>self-organization as a spontantaneous increase in complexity. With this
>definition it is clear, to me anyway, that the initial phase of the
>"evolve" program is one of self-organization. I remember running one
>case where there was a sudden inversion of this process, i.e. a
>complicated spatial pattern suddenly changed to a vertical line.
>So, there doesn't seem to be a continual, upward spiral of complexity
>as one would probably want. This is just an observation rather than
>a criticism since I realize you were not trying to include this type
>of behavior in your model.
I didn't put you in a bind, the program did it. :-)
Your noticing the sudden decrease in complexity is not surprising to me. I have seen it several times. Once all the way back to a dot. But this can only occur with significant probability early in the program. We see this type of behavior in the fossil record. New groups appear and then for a while more "primitive" groups appear in later strata. It is due to the randomness of the mutations. What can be mutated, can be unmutated. The whole concept that evolution is, or must be some sort of upward progression is wrong. Wrong theoretically and wrong observationally. If I had a continually upward spiral of complexity, I would consider the model seriously flawed and not representative of reality.
Brian wrote:
>My bottom line is that Glenn's programs perform as advertised, i.e. they
>illustrate the principles that he intended. I agree with Gordon, however,
>in that they should be considered, for the time being anyway, as suggestive
>rather than conclusive. I still think you go a little over board in
>some of your claims about the power of modeling, but, this is forgivable
>as a natural reaction to some of the unfair criticisms you have received.
I would agree that my models are not conclusive. Little in this world is truly conclusive (look at the evolution/creation debate). But the models show that iterative systems do behave in a fasion similar to what we observe in the fossil record. If you use the equation (x-new) = function (x-old) then when I was born, I was x-new. Now that I have children, I have become x-old (my grandfather liked to drink old-xxx but I guess that isn't relevant here). My children someday will become x-old in their turn. Living systems are iterative.
As such, the laws of iterative mathematics should apply to them!
My point with the aeronautical examples of modeling, both the use of computers to minimize wind-tunnel tests and the training of pilots by use of computer simulations was merely to defend the idea that models are very very useful. I have two pilot friends one works for American the other Delta. they both tell me that they fly the plane for the first time with a full load. They learn in simulators. (Comforting isn't it) I have a brother-in-law who works for a major airplane maker. He told me about their minimizing expensive wind-tunnel tests. I really wasn't trying to defend that activity, but merely to point out that models exist which are that good. They didn't start out that way and my program can not be considered at that stage yet. But Christians can no longer claim legitimately that NO mechanism exists for evolution. And they can no longer legitimately claim that evolution violates the second law of thermo.
glenn